Well not exactly.
I'm no fan of denominations and the institutionalised church often drives me nuts, but there's no doubt that Paul founded churches and the believer's met in peoples' houses, or other buildings, to worship God, break bread and have fellowship. The church today is nothing like it was then, that is true, but the nucleus of it was there - a group/groups meeting together to worship, pray, serve and learn with an elder or some kind of leader.
Fellowship is the one dynamic that goes mostly ignored within institutionalism. My congregant members have never demonstrated an ability to fellowship with the backs of each other's heads, so we set out to change the arrangement so that we could all sit together more like a family than remaining an audience.
Firstly, this isn't a matter of doctrine, it's church practice. Whether you have a man or woman preaching, the Gospel doesn't change; the word of God is still a two edged sword with the power to convict and change people.
As I said, doctrinal authority for teaching is not the same thing as sharing the Gospel. The members in our organization already know the Gospel. I don't need to reiterate that to them in our meetings.
Secondly, if a woman has spiritual gifts of leading and teaching, is trained and is called by God to use those gifts for the church, that is very different to her setting herself up as a "doctrinal teaching authority".
Also, again, that taking place in a man-made church organization meeting is something professing believers have the freedom to do. It's just a venue people choose to support. Having said that, a position one has in man-made institutions is not what can be said to be their function in the (C)hurch. No woman can function in the (C)hurch what is reserved for men, and vice versa.
But they are, and they do.
Nope. That is utterly false where the (C)hurch is concerned. Keep in mind the vast differences between (c)hurches and the (C)hurch.
THE Church, the bride of Christ, is all believers - all denominations, all cultures, all practices; those who ordain women/baptise babies/speak in tongues/wear robes/use incense, and those who don't.
Wrong! THE (C)hurch is strictly people. All those denominational affiliations, cultures and other man-made distinctions where unbelievers can enter in are not THE (C)hurch. No unbeliever can enter into the (C)hurch.
If we are born again, we are children of God, heirs with Christ, adopted by Him, given the Spirit who guarantees our inheritance.
No doubt.
Nothing else matters except Christ crucified, risen, ascended and glorified; nothing else can save, or condemn, us.
I never said otherwise.
Jesus is King, and where people are proclaiming him and living under his kingship, the Kingdom of God is - a Kingdom which cares about proclaiming God's love, forgiveness, reconciliation, peace, justice. God's ways and words have often been proclaimed and taught by women - Deborah, Huldah, Miriam, Mary Magdalene and other female disciples.
You will search in vain to find where Deborah or any of those other women stood as doctrinal teaching authorities. Being a judge over Israel did not mean that Deborah also functioned in the priesthood, offering up sacrifices and teaching God's Law to the people in the place of the men priests. Of course, you can do as some others have done through the years, which is to INJECT into the scriptures what isn't there about those women, but that doesn't bolster your case to the level of evidential backing.
It may start with a strong, or persistent feeling that doesn't go away or change, but God's call is far more, and far stronger than, a mere, changeable feeling/emotion.
Many men out there consider themselves called into the ministry by God who have no business there, so it comes as no surprise that some women feel the same. Self-deception is a constant, never-ending element of the fallen, human nature in this life, on this earth.
I'm sure you mean well, and I don't mean to sound rude, but that's not really good enough.
What? Go for it? It means that I acknowledge everyone's freedom to do as they please, whether it is in conformance to what is revealed in scripture, or not. Many choose to try and "spiritualize" Paul's instructions concerning women and doctrinal teaching authority. They all have that freedom. Many of us, on the other hand, choose to NOT give in to that feministic-based system of theological warp and twisting of what's written, thus wrestling it into saying what some want it to say. Everyone has the freedom to do that, but it's not necessarily right.
The whole question is, is it a sin for women to be ordained and preach God's word? If it IS, then by saying 'go for it', you are encouraging women to sin. If it's NOT a sin, and Scripture doesn't say otherwise; what's all the arguing about?
Ok. Let's give this another try: Man-made, institutional church organizations can and will function in whatever way they see fit. The (C)hurch is not man-made, and will always function in accordance with what is written in the word of God. What most call a "local body" that most call their (c)hurch, if it is a legitimate representation of the (C)hurch as an expression on this earth and in the community, all participants will desire and practice exactly what is written without corrupting it with man-made injections of culture, society and movements (such as feminisim, homosexuality, inappropriate behavior with animals, pedophilia) and/or any of the other corruptions arising from the fallenness of humanity.
All else disqualifies each of those institutions from being a legitimate representation of the (C)hurch, thus their freedom to do as they so choose....even to the extent of having a horse whinnying sermons from the pulpit (which some qualify as such, be it mare or stallion). I never said it was sin for a group to have and establish alternative functions in a group setting. How can a woman sin when she cannot function within the (C)hurch what is not hers to fulfill? That's like asking how the (C)hurch could remain pure with unbelievers in that body. They can't enter in, just as no woman can function as a teaching authority in the (C)hurch. A woman can function in that capacity in a mere (c)hurch that does whatsoever it darn well pleases, but that grouping is not representative of the (C)hurch. It represents its own values and beliefs originating from the world, not from Christ Jesus. Thus, the (C)hurch remains incorrupt.
You can disagree with that, which is fine. A woman practicing doctrinal teaching authority in an institutional (c)hurch organization is no more representative of the (C)hurch than the IRS, DoD, FAA or any other man-made organization or agency. So, how is she sinning while doing something that is not representative of the reality of what the (C)hurch is about? She and they who sit under her are doing their own thing apart from the legitimacy of what defines a genuine, true representation of the (C)hurch on this earth? It's no different than for you or I going out to shop at the mall, pay parking tickets, visit the grand kids, et al. We are free to do many things in life that are not representative of the (C)hurch, so why not group gatherings to watch a show, listen to a speaker, and enjoy sing-along of hymns with others, calling it our "(c)hurch"? I can call my house a castle, but that doesn't make it as sturdy and secure as a castle built with stone and a moat surrounding it filled with crockodiles.
Go for it.
Jr
